MOSCOW — The reviews were not kind when two Russians accused of slipping into England and poisoning a turncoat spy appeared on TV to profess their innocence. They were, the men said, just a couple of sports nutritionists taking a weekend jaunt to a cathedral town.

“One of the biggest information warfare blunders ever,” declared a BBC diplomatic editor. Others said the interview on Russian state television was a skit worthy of Monty Python. The British government said it was “an insult to the public’s intelligence.”

But foreigners rolling their eyes and dismissing the men’s account as patently implausible may be missing the point. For Russia, the yardstick of success for the interview was not credibility.

“It is a slap in the face of the West,” said Peter Pomerantsev, a fellow at the London School of Economics and author of “Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible,” an account of his time as a television producer in Moscow. Russia, said Mr. Pomerantsev, “gave up a long time ago on trying to convince anybody that it is telling the truth.”

But the Kremlin works hard to confuse and distract, and to convince everyone, whether inside Russia or beyond, that President Vladimir V. Putin is so strong he can set his own truth, no matter how hard it may be to believe.

From Moscow’s viewpoint, the interview on RT, a Kremlin-funded network formerly known as Russia Today, was a masterpiece of in-your-face defiance. It also reprised the greatest hits of Russian propaganda under Mr. Putin.

In just 25 minutes, the interview distilled the favorite tropes of the Kremlin’s propaganda machine: Russia always gets blamed by the West for crimes it did not commit. Its people thirst for a Europe of churches and traditional culture, but are frustrated in their high-minded aspirations by obstacles thrown up abroad, in this case the English weather.

There was even a cameo role for the Kremlin’s old standby, homophobia, with heavy hints that the two men accused by Britain, Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, may well be gay and therefore could not possibly be Russian military intelligence officers deployed, as Britain says they were, for the manly business of assassination.

Konstantin von Eggert, a political commentator and former talk show host on independent television, said the appearance of the two men on RT was not really meant to convince anybody of Russia’s innocence in the Salisbury attack but only to deliver a message to foreign critics and domestic foes that “nothing you say or do will change anything.”

The Kremlin, he said, “is telling the West: ‘Yes, we did it, yes, we messed up, and yes, we will do it again if we want.’”

That Mr. Putin had a hand in orchestrating the interview was clear from the fact that, a day before it was broadcast by RT on Thursday, he declared Mr. Petrov and Mr. Boshirov innocent of any crimes and, speaking at an economic conference in Vladivostok, urged them to come forward to tell their story. They swiftly obliged.

By the end of the same day, they had contacted Margarita Simonyan, the RT editor in chief, and sat down in front of the camera to answer a series of softball questions. These did not include the most obvious question: How did the hotel room where the men stayed in London come to have traces of Novichok, the nerve agent used against Sergei V. Skripal, a former Russian spy.

Mr. Skripal survived the attack, and Mr. Putin’s role has set off speculation that he may have ordered military commanders to make Mr. Boshirov and Mr. Petrov appear on television to punish them for their bungling performance in Salisbury, England.

Mr. Putin, however, has no history of publicly sanctioning, even less of humiliating, his so-called siloviki, the military and security service officials who dominate his administration, no matter how disastrously incompetent or corrupt they or their underlings might be.

Image

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia is believed to have been behind the interview with the two men, whom Britain has accused of poisoning a former Russian spy.

CreditPool photo by Alexei Nikolsky

Instead of killing Mr. Skripal, the nerve agent attack landed him and his daughter, Yulia, in the hospital, along with a British police officer and a Salisbury resident — and left Moscow open to condemnation for an act of state terrorism with a military grade chemical weapon.

Then, on top of that, according to British investigators, the two men discarded a vial that carried the Novichok so carelessly that a British woman died after her boyfriend found it months later and, thinking it was perfume, brought the bottle home as a gift.

In the RT interview, Mr. Petrov and Mr. Boshirov insisted that they had such a keen interest in medieval ecclesiastical architecture and burning desire to see Salisbury’s cathedral that they traveled to Britain for a weekend getaway that included two separate trips to Salisbury and two nights in a grungy London hotel. They firmly denied any connection to Russian military intelligence, now called the G.U. but until recently known as the G.R.U.

Their account — which included claims of knee-deep slush and “transport collapse” that forced them to abandon a first visit to Salisbury on March 3 and try again on March 4, the day of the nerve agent attack — struck many Britons as so risible that a columnist in The Guardian suggested that “comedy is now diplomacy by other means.”

There was some snow in Salisbury at the time but none of the weather-induced “havoc” cited by Mr. Petrov and nothing that might normally deter two fit Russian men accustomed to harsh winters from walking a few hundred yards from the railway station to the cathedral. And why, if they were so keen to see the cathedral, did they head in the opposition direction from the station and wander into Mr. Skripal’s neighborhood on the other side of town?

Their story certainly did not win over many people in Britain and elsewhere, or help burnish Russia’s image.

The interview also left many Russians, even some sympathetic to the Kremlin, shaking their heads. It was so bizarre that a television critic, Arina Borodina, claimed that Ms. Simonyan, the RT editor, had not really met the two men and that footage of her asking them questions had been spliced together with their answers, delivered in a secret location under supervision.

Jakub Kalensky, who leads efforts to counter disinformation at a European Union strategic communication unit in Brussels, said the widely panned interview on RT suggested that Russia’s “message may simply be this: ‘We just don’t care how credible or incredible what we say sounds.’”

But the two men did manage to build a high — if not very believable — wall of denial. And they also “succeeded in turning the tragedy in Salisbury into a farce,” said Mr. Pomerantsev, the former Russian television producer.

Still, on Saturday, Russian claims that Mr. Petrov and Mr. Boshirov were innocent, fun-loving civilians took a blow when Novaya Gazeta, an opposition Russian newspaper, reported that the Moscow telephone number listed for Mr. Petrov in official records belonged to the Russian Defense Ministry.

And an investigation by Bellingcat, an online platform, found that there is no record of either Mr. Boshirov or Mr. Petrov in an official database of residential and passport information before 2009, when they were issued internal passports under the names they now use. It said this suggested that the two men had previously used other names and that their current names are “cover identities for operatives of one of the Russian security services.” Mr. Petrov’s official file, Bellingcat said, is marked “top secret.”

The overriding message from the RT interview, as with all of Russia’s responses to foreign accusations against the country, was that blameless Russians have again fallen victim to Western lies and prejudice. In a near-permanent state of high-dudgeon over Western accusations of misbehavior, Russia invariably responds to criticism by condemning the critic.

Just this week, the Foreign Ministry summoned the Swiss and Dutch ambassadors to Moscow to complain that their countries were damaging relations after reports the Netherlands expelled two Russian spies accused of plotting cyber-sabotage of a Swiss defense laboratory analyzing the nerve agent used in Salisbury.

In their interview, Mr. Petrov and Mr. Boshirov adopted the same plaintive tone used by Mr. Putin and his officials in response to past accusations. Among them: that Russian missiles shot down an airliner in July 2014 over eastern Ukraine; that Russian troops supported a bloody separatist rebellion there; and that Russian hackers meddled in the 2016 presidential election in the United States.

“We just want to be left in peace,” Mr. Boshirov said, demanding that Britain apologize for all the grief it has caused him and Mr. Petrov.

Correction:

An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the nerve agent Novichok. It is a chemical weapon, not a biological one.

Sophia Kishkovsky contributed reporting.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A6 of the New York edition with the headline: In Interview With Two Russians, Credibility Is the Half of It. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe